If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Agreed, some people will do so regardless of whether it is legal or not. I'm all for paying money to punish such people.
Possession is a crime because buying drugs fuels the sale of drugs, and the sale and use of drugs is bad because of the harm drugs do. By punishing the buyer the law makes it clear that they have done something wrong, the punishment alone (drugs policy is rarely punishment alone) may or may not make them see the light, but "Finger-wagging" is important because it at least sends the message that your behaviour is wrong even if you choose to ignore that message. You think that's a waste of money, I think that's why the law exists.
That's the crux of the matter really. At the end of the day the legalizer doesn't actually believe that heroin is in itself bad. Somebody who is against legalisation does. I think addiction is in itself a bad thing because of the harm it does to a person's body and mental state, the misery it brings to a person's life (and the lives of those attached to them). All that would be magnified with legalisation as well as the cost of treatment for such people.
Agreed, the crime connected with gang wars would probably reduce. That is the only good part of the pro-legalisation argument. But how big the black market would be will vary depending on supply and how restrictive the legalisation programme is. And even if the drug gangs are pushed out of that business they, being the resilient fellows that they are, will no doubt find some other way to be mischievous. Weigh that up against the harm done to society by more people taking heroin and I don't think it's worth it.
So? Your argument was that people who want to seek out help with an addiction are scared off by fear of punishment and legalisation would solve that problem.
Of course culture and society have their influence, the law doesn't work alone but it also has an important influence on culture and society. Even if it were initially still socially discouraged the influence of the law would be lost as a result of which it would gradually become more and more socially acceptable, which is part of the reason why people who want it to be socially acceptable are for legalisation. Having a never ending cheap supply of heroin with the law no longer telling you to stop is an even more potent reason for the junkie not to kick the habit.
"Finger wagging" is what the law is for.
You're just ignoring all the negative effects that you know are connected to them. I imagine they're banned because of that, and because it is believed that once you begin with less dangerous drug abuse you are more likely to progress to more dangerous drug abuse.
MORE harm is caused by drugs when they remain illegal. More harm to society and more harm to the user. The law as it stands creates more problems than it solves.
Fundamentally the act of taking a drug isn't 'wrong'. Simply getting high isn't immoral.
The issue of morality comes in when the oney goes to organised crime or when the user acts in a way that is detrimental to others, such as stealing to pay for their drugs. Most of those issues arrise because there is a black market created by the law.
Well actually it the impurities in heroin that are most damaging to the users body and the risk of disease. Issues created by the fact there is no quality control on black market drugs, and use is underground resulting in the sharing of needles and such.
Precribe a heroin addict clean gear, a safe place and method to take it and these issues would be greatly reduced.
Drugs related crime costs society far more than any such treatment.
So? Your argument was that people who want to seek out help with an addiction are scared off by fear of punishment and legalisation would solve that problem.
So you think the law is a big incentive for addicts to kick the habit? It's not.
And by treating addiction as a crime rather than an illness, landing the addict with conviction after conviction who exactly do are we helping? It isn't the addict.
I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but most people who use illegal drugs do so without getting addicted, turning to a life of crime or dying.
In much the same way people drink without becoming alcoholics.
Yet again, there is no evidence that this happens. I'm sorry if I'm ruining your arguments by demanding evidence, (shock, horror), but I was under the impression that evidence is the way we decide how dangerous a substance is.
Incidentally, Skive is right about quality control. If I offered you a drink of absinthe made in the brief period it was illegal in France, and made in someone's dirty bathtub, or a drink from a bottle made in clean, regulated, modern factories, which would you pick? I can't believe anyone would pick the former, but plenty of people currently end up doing so with illegal drugs, because the second option isn't there. And so substances which aren't particularly dangerous may just become a bit moreso (and even in this situation, most of them are still not as dangerous as aspirin).
A reassessment by independant scientists and experts on the risks of different drugs including those that are legal. Based on three criteria, the risk to the user, the addictiveness, and the social damage they are then put into ranked list. The results may suprise you.
Part one (the other parts are on there)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR3gIuWYnQo&feature=related
Of course heroin in of itself isnt bad (or good), its a chemical like many others.
If it is used in a hospice to give comfort to someone dying of cancer I would say it is a very useful tool.
If it is being injected by a 15 year old in a park with a dirty needle then I'd suggest its harmful.
But it isnt actually the heroin which is the issue here, it is how its used and by whom. The heroin problem in the UK is the easiest of any of the drugs to solve, make it the same prescription class as methadone and let GP's and drug counsellors do their job with a wider array of tools.
The place is crawling with British and American inteligence to make sure you can't.
They only sell it to certain people.
Heroin is now the cheapest it's ever been.
If your government really wanted heroin off the streets it would be very easy to do at the moment.
I'm not looking for your approval IWS, you're free not to take my argument seriously if you like. I'm not saying that cannabis, LSD and ecstasy are necessarily MORE dangerous than currently legalised substances though. What I've said is that the fact that harmful substances are currently legal is not an argument for legalising other harmful substances. The drugs you've mentioned are less dangerous than others, but the actions of people while using them, or the combination of them with other substances like alcohol can still be dangerous.
Ecstasy and its side effects:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/Infofacts/MDMA06.pdf
http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/infofacts/ClubDrugs06.pdf
http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/MDMAConf.pdf
Cannabis and its side effects
http://www.lunguk.org/NR/rdonlyres/94E8B464-B0D3-4E35-A759-79558CF9B89C/0/A_Smoking_Gun.pdf
http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/12/1058 (have to pay)
http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/62/12/1036?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Cannabis&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.nida.nih.gov/pdf/MJConf/MJConf.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4109360.stm
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120136671/abstract (have to pay)
Granted LSD is relatively tame (possible terror while using, and spontaneous flashbacks sometime afterwards aside).
There is evidence:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1367674 (have to pay).
But there isn't evidence that legalising less harmful drugs will encourage more people to take more harmful drugs by removing the stigma around drug use generally, yet that doesn't change the fact that it is plausible either.
I've already given my views on this argument to be honest: both lower and higher quality versions of heroin are addictive. Addiction bad. Doing something dangerous while under the influence of some drug - bad. Even mixing relatively tame drugs together may be damaging.
But opposition to drugs has no basis in fact so never mind.
Take a look at Holland.
The average age of a heroin addict there is 48 years old.
Cannabis is widely available and widely accepted.
Less young people there use drugs now they have been so available and acceptable these last twenty years.
Anyway, I'm reading the link you gave to MDMA, so I'll get back to you later (though I'm a bit dubious already about a paper that refers to it as "abuse" from the very start).
That's a comprehensive selection of neatural sources there.
The short term risk from ecstasy is less or at least comparable to many extreme sports. Do you suggest we outlaw sky diving, horse riding and rock climbing?
Why is the recreation use of ecstasy wrong, when as recreationally throwing yourself out of a plance is considered perfectly fine?
Read them. They're quite interesting. I'm particularly interested in the section I'm reading at the moment about the number of deaths attributed to MDMA where no actual MDMA is found in the system, yet a whole variety of other substances are. I doubt that would happen in a legislated industry like the alcohol or tobacco industry somehow.
They're out of date. The info about toxicity in animals appears to refer to a study that has since been discredited.
This is a honest documentary about the history, the effetcs, medical use, and popular studies regarding ecstasy. What makes it suprising is that from Peter Jennings and ABC - it must have gone down a storm in America.
RUNNYMEDE WATCH IT.
Ecstasy Rising
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1564288654365150131
Legal supply of recreational drugs doesnt have to be safe, it doesnt even have to be a great solution - all it has to be is better than what we have now, and it certainly cant fail as badly as the law is at the moment.